Matthew 26a

26: 1a.. When Jesus had finished saying all these things, …

 Where are we in the story? Which things was Jesus saying? This goes back to when Jesus and the disciples left the temple (24: 1), Jesus commented on the temple’s eventual destruction (24: 2); then they reached the Mount of Olives, the disciples asked some questions (24: 3). Jesus began to respond, and it turned into a long discourse with parables and a prophecy (24: 4–25:46). Thus ended the last large section of discourse in Matthew’s gospel, and the reason Matthew says ‘all’ these things. Now events move a bit faster. 

26: 1b-2.  …he said to his disciples, “You know that after two days the Passover is coming, and the Son of Man will be handed over to be crucified.”

 Jesus now returns to the event that is drawing closer and closer: the crucial act of his mission on earth. This has been looming over Jesus’ head for a while. The devil had tempted Jesus to find another way, but Jesus defended himself (4: 1-11). Several times Jesus has tried to warn the disciples about the seriousness of his destiny. When Jesus first told the disciples about his future suffering and death, Peter tried to correct him (16: 21-23). Jesus spoke later and the disciples were “greatly distressed” (17: 22-23). A third time Jesus explained why they were going to Jerusalem (20: 17-19), but the disciples seem to have missed the point (20: 20-28). Now that they have arrived in Jerusalem, Jesus tells them one last time.

 This time Jesus links his suffering and death with the Passover. It is no accident. Jesus has good reason to think that the end is near, and that his sacrifice mirrors the sacrifice of the lamb at Passover and thus fulfills the intent of the ritual. Remember that, in Exodus, the blood of the sacrificial lamb on the doorpost meant that the angel of death would ‘pass over’ that house.  

26: 3-5.  Then the chief priests and the elders of the people gathered in the courtyard of the high priest, who was called Caiaphas, and they conspired to arrest Jesus by stealth and kill him. But they said, “Not during the festival, or there may be a riot among the people.”

 Notice that the ‘Then’ follows hard on Jesus’ prophecy that he would be handed over and crucified. The implication is that these two events, prophecy and conspiracy, were happening at the same time. 

 Most conspiring happens behind closed doors. The term ‘chief priests’ refers to the leading priestly families. At this time, the former high priest, Annas, and his five sons constituted these families. Caiaphas had married Annas’ daughter. As described in the literature of the time (particularly Josephus), Caiaphas was politically astute and the evidence is that he survived in the position from 18-36 AD. He was replaced when Pilate was recalled to Rome and his replacement appointed a new high priest. The high priests were selected by the Roman occupying force. The Roman influence was tolerated by some but resented by many. If the Romans arrested and executed a Jew, any Jew, during the festival, certain segments of the population would protest.   

 We can conclude that Annas’ family was cooperating, to a certain extent, with the Romans. Both complicity and corruption were deplored, in print, by the Essenes (Dead Sea Scrolls) as well as by the Jewish historian Josephus (Craig Keener and John Walton, footnotes in The NRSV Cultural Backgrounds Study Bible (2019), page 1683; see also Ben Witherington III, Matthew, 2006, page 473-474).

 Why were the chief priests anxious about not settling their Jesus problem during the feast. Passover was Day 1, but it was followed by seven days called the Feast of Unleavened Bread. Jerusalem would be full of people for eight days and the pilgrims would include Galileans and Zealots, people who might take offense at the death of Jesus, particularly if it was at the hands of the Romans. If the Jews break out in riot, the chief priests will have to answer to Rome. But, of course, events are already out of their control, are they not?

26: 6-9.  Now while Jesus was at Bethany in the house of Simon the leper, a woman came to him with an alabaster jar of very costly ointment, and she poured it on his head as he sat at the table. But when the disciples saw it, they were angry and said, “Why this waste? For this ointment could have been sold for a large sum and the money given to the poor.” 

 Where are Jesus and the disciples now in terms of geography? “All these things” were spoken while Jesus was on the Mount of Olives. On the slopes of that mountain was the village of Bethany. We do not know who this Simon is. There are many Simons in the New Testament but this one might be new to us. The first readers of Matthew probably knew who he was since he is identified only as a leper or someone with a skin disease and no effort is made to identify him further. Simon is probably someone that Jesus healed. It is not likely that he would have a gathering at his house if he still had a disease. 

 The woman with the ointment is not fully identified either. Note that a similar, but not exactly the same, account in the Gospel According to John names both the woman and the objecting disciple (John 12: 1-8). We will follow Matthew’s account and perhaps examine John’s story in another study series about his gospel. Different gospel writers have different points to make.

 That the disciples, or at least some of them, become angry means that, once again, they have missed the point. The ointment, not oil, was “very costly” and was worth “a large sum of money.” It is suggested that such a treasure was probably an heirloom or perhaps part of the dowry of this woman and, as such, would have been held in reserve for years, as we do with the proceeds from the sale of our house or land. So, it is a shocking display of excess. But what does it mean?

 Anointing with ointment or oil was common in Old Testament times and the meaning ranged from blessing a future king to preparing a body for burial. The disciples did not think about the meaning, only the money. Perhaps they are greedy, like Judas, or perhaps they are thinking of the Passover tradition of giving out alms for the poor. It is easy to be a conscientious giver with someone else’s money. 

26: 10-13.  But Jesus, aware of this, said to them, “Why do you trouble the woman? She has performed a good service for me. For you always have the poor with you, but you will not always have me. By pouring this ointment on my body she has prepared me for burial. Truly I tell you, wherever this good news/ gospel is proclaimed in the whole world, what she has done will be told in remembrance of her.”

 It looks like the disciples did not grumble quietly. After the anointing, which was a beautiful moment, Jesus turned to the disciples and took them to task for their complaint. First, he addresses the possibility that they were really concerned about the poor. The injunction comes from Deuteronomy 15, among other places.

 “If anyone is poor among your fellow Israelites in any of the towns of the land the LORD your God is giving you, do not be hardhearted or tightfisted toward them. Rather, be open handed and freely lend them whatever they need. … Give generously to them and do so without a grudging heart; then because of this the LORD your God will bless you in all your work and in everything you put your hand to. There will always be poor people in the land. Therefore I command you to be openhanded toward your fellow Israelites who are poor and needy in your land (Deuteronomy 15: 7-8, 10-11).

 Notice first that the command is clear: Give (or lend) to the poor freely. Be generous. Second, notice that Jesus quoted only the first half of the last verse: “There will always be poor in the land.” In Matthew, some people interpret Jesus’ quote as an indication that, since you will always have the poor with you, what can you do? Or whatever you do will not be enough, so don’t be obligated. That is not the proper interpretation.

 Remember that there were no verse or chapter divisions during these times. People would quote the first part of a verse, and others would unroll the scroll to find out what the whole passage said. The whole passage here says, “There will always be poor in the land, therefore I command you to be open handed toward your fellow Israelites who are poor and needy in your land. So, Jesus is not dismissing our obligation to be generous to the poor; there are many poor in the land, therefore you have to help. 

 The exception is that, in this case, Jesus the King and the Messiah will only be with them a short time now, so it was especially appropriate for this woman to anoint him for his burial. She serves a prophetic function here, reminding the disciples and all who are present, about the larger picture of Jesus' mission to bring salvation to those who need it. 

26: 14-16.  Then one of the twelve, who was called Judas Iscariot, went to the chief priests and said, “What will you give me if I betray him to you?” They paid him thirty pieces of silver. And from that moment he began to look for an opportunity to betray him.

 We will deal with this more next week, but let’s just recognize that Judas was the one who kept the purse, and he was especially bothered with the ‘wasted’ ointment (see also John 12: 4-5). John says that Judas used to sneak money out of the common purse for himself, and thus this represented a loss for him. That was probably stronger than his concern for the poor. So it looks like Judas took offense at what the woman did.

 Perhaps he took offense because it confirmed that Jesus’ path involved self-sacrifice, not summoning people to rebel against the Romans. Or perhaps he saw that he could no longer skim off the top of incoming donations. Either way, Judas believes in taking care of himself first, even at the expense of others; even at the expense of Jesus. Take care of yourself first; that’s the Christian way– isn’t it?